The Republicans' Inside-Out Approach to Poverty?!!

[Taft2016]

military build-up under Reagan to pay for, all on the cuff while he cut taxes.

Cut taxes and doubled tax revenues.

Go figure. Supplied side worked.

Yeah, debts ran up. Promised spending cuts from libs didn't materialize. Lib spending outpaced the doubling tax revenues.

What came of the military spending? We won the Cold War and liberated huge swaths of the planet held under totalitarian slavery that libtards in this country preferred to grovel before.

Take this crapola and GTFOH.

 

[Dantès]

Deficit when Johnson made his speech; $1.4 billion.

Deficit when Johnson left office; $25.1 billion.

Deficit when Obama took office; $1.4 trillion.

Average deficit during the Obama Presidency after withdrawing from Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan - $1.045 trillion.

Poverty; almost identical to when the war was declared 50 years ago. Result= fail.

Why are you acting as if the War in Vietnam which was funded at much higher levels than the war on poverty didn't happen and didn't contribute to Johnson's debt? What do you think the phrase "guns and butter" refers to? In fact, the amount of money spent on the poor between 1965 and 1977 was about $35 billion or 1.7% of the Gross National Product. This is how much was spent over twelve years time or about $3 billion a year was spent on the war on poverty in the year when the most was spent. So it's hard to justify claiming that trillions of dollars in debt ever went to fight the war on poverty. And anyone who does so is just plain lying. Or they are too ignorant to be talking about the importance of education, because they obviously never felt the need to educate themselves .

 

[Taft2016]

Debt vs. spending numbers from LBJ's administration are inherently misleading.

He was the president who first tossed Social Security contributions into the general fund and spent them as he wished.

He had a huge pot of cash to play around with.

 

[Dantès]

And yet Obama wants to CUT Social Security benefits, a program that people were forced to contribute to all their working lives.....go figure.

Is his idea of "redistributing the wealth" to take from seniors while he don't contribute a penny to the fund and will never need the benefits ?

Last time I checked Obama didn't have a vote or much to say about the level at which programs like Social Security are funded. He can only make suggestions. And he has been telling the elites of this country that he wanted to cut entitlements since he first spoke to the members of the Hamilton Project when he became a Senator from Illinois but today he doesn't have a vote. Meanwhile the Republicans in Congress who actually do have a vote are trying to go far beyond a mere restructuring of how the increases in Social Security are calculated, which is actually what Obama is proposing, they want to destroy Social Security and Medicare and force everyone back into a take care of yourself program, the kind we had that worked so well before Social Security that we were forced by the state of the elderly in this country to create the Social Security program to deal with the problems that the Republican's proposals are just going to recreate. But they don't care about history! That shit just isn't important.

 

[Taft2016]

Last time I checked Obama didn't have a vote or much to say about the level at which programs like Social Security are funded.

Well let's check some of the budghets he's submitted and... oh.

Back to Civics 101 for you.

 

[Dantès]

Well let's check some of the budghets he's submitted and... oh.

Back to Civics 101 for you.

Well let's see those budgets. Where are they? You have innuendo here with nothing to back it up!

 

[Dantès]

Debt vs. spending numbers from LBJ's administration are inherently misleading.

He was the president who first tossed Social Security contributions into the general fund and spent them as he wished.

He had a huge pot of cash to play around with.

I don't seen one bit of evidence for anything you have said here. I give actual numbers and you give me nothing! "He had a huge pot of cash" sounds about as abstract as the "fresh vegetables."

 

[Dantès]

Cut taxes and doubled tax revenues.

Go figure. Supplied side worked.

Yeah, debts ran up. Promised spending cuts from libs didn't materialize. Lib spending outpaced the doubling tax revenues.

What came of the military spending? We won the Cold War and liberated huge swaths of the planet held under totalitarian slavery that libtards in this country preferred to grovel before.

Take this crapola and GTFOH.

Yes it worked so well that Bush 41 was able to say, "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then had to promptly raise taxes when he realized the state of the nation when Reagan left office. Your bullshit won't fly because it is bullshit unsupported by the facts on the ground!

 

[Taft2016]

Yes it worked so well that Bush 41 was able to say, "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then had to promptly raise taxes when he realized the state of the nation when Reagan left office. Your bullshit won't fly because it is bullshit unsupported by the facts on the ground!

History is easy when you get to make it up as you go along.

Bush raised taxes instead of allowing the Dems to shut down the government, as they were threatening to do.

Yeah, they threatened to do that very same thing that got liberal panties so wadded only a month or two ago.

Bush caved, libs promised spending cuts for every $1 in taxes increased. Naturally, libs couldn't find any cuts, so they never happened.

 

[Taft2016]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/01/short-history-of-the-debt-ceilinggovernment-shutdowns/

•October 5 – 9, 1990
All previous government shutdowns lasted only short periods of time, in 1990 that changed under Reagan’s successor and former Vice President, and then President George H.W. Bush when the government experienced its longest shutdown. In October 1990 the government was shut down a total of three days, because of Democratic Congress and the Republican President could not agree on a budget for 1991. As signs of economic problems were visible on the horizon, the battle was centered on the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to balance the budget. Democrats wanted to increase taxes on the nation’s richest to reduce the ballooning deficit, but in the 1988 campaign Bush had promise he would not increase any taxes across the board. Bush threatened to veto any budget that Congress presented to him that included a tax increase. Oct. 6, 1990: President Bush made good on his veto threat; with the budget vetoed and without a continuing resolution agreed upon, the government was shut down throughout the three day Columbus Day weekend. Both the President and Congress wanted to limit the negative impact of a shutdown, and they agreed the new budget would not include any surtax or tax increases. Over the weekend President Bush then signed a continuance, and government opened on Tuesday morning. The closure during the holiday weekend, limited the impact a three day closure would had on running the government, had it been closed for three days during the week. Bush was however, was forced to agree to tax increases, going against his main campaign pledge. The President signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 on November 5, 1990 securing a budget for the fiscal year.

 

[Dantès]

Dear dunce; no level of funding will make people prosperous or raise them out of poverty. That is a leftist myth based on 50 years of failure and $20.7 trillion of other peoples money spent.

You will never resolve the issue of poverty through government programs....EVER. Venezeula is the perfect example of such dimwitted efforts and all they have done is made misery a common theme for everyone. The brain dead economic dunces have to ask themselves how a small country rich in oil resources could fail so miserably with their feel good Marxist ideological policies.

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a sane policy. Ensuring that there is a strong incentive for risk taking and investments ensures future job growth. Reforming our educational systems and actually focusing on teaching instead of indoctrinating and trying to force equal outcomes will go a long way towards ending poverty.

People aren't poor because the Government doesn't steal enough wealth; they are poor because they make really bad choices and lack education. They remain poor when well intentioned leftist dunces make excuses for their bad choices and promise them a free lunch for their votes.

Please show me one nation that taxed its citizens into prosperity; you just cannot find one.

If the poverty level for a single person is judged to be $13,000 a year and you give them $13,200 a year you have by definition raised them out of poverty. It's called mathematics. You should learn some!

 

[Dantès]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/01/short-history-of-the-debt-ceilinggovernment-shutdowns/

Relevance? I still don't see any numbers here which indicate what was or wasn't decided on!

 

[Truth Detector]

So the tax cuts that brought the rates from 91% to 38% are no longer viable because your hair grows enough to need to be cut every 2-3 weeks. Have your taxes grown every 2-3 weeks too! No they haven't, and the tax cuts didn't create the jobs they were supposed to create in fact if they had there would have been full employment, but there hasn't been anything even approaching full employment since WWII although some states during the Clinton years did get down to 2-3% unemployment, which is damn close to full employment. And this surge in employment followed tax increases. But mostly for the last 30 years the rates have been under 40% and we have had recessions and 5-6 percent unemployment, as well as a general stagnation in wages coupled with huge increases in production. But the money from those production increases have not trickled down to the workers in the form of wages increases, they have gone to the people at the top in the form of huge salary increases.

Another dunce who can't distinguish the difference between marginal rates and actual rates.

Also, for the edification of the dullard class Dante's represents; there is no such thing as "full" employment.

Also, for dunces like Dante's; there have been huge increases of the middle class standard of living and after the JFK tax cuts labor participation rates and job creation expanded.

You really are THAT stupid. Which would explain why you voted for Obama. I'm amused that lefttards like you think your the smartest people on the planet...ironic.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yeah, the country also didn't have a massive war in Vietnam to pay for, it didn't have the wars and invasions and military build-up under Reagan to pay for, all on the cuff while he cut taxes, it didn't have the first Iraq war which was fought under the first Bush, 41, to pay for, and it certainly didn't have the wars on the cuff started and fought by his son to the tune of over 3 trillion dollars or more to pay for. Compare all that warfare which is nothing more than blowing piles and piles of money up and what that costs and then compare the budgets of the Pentagon with the budgets for all social programs except Social Security, during these years that you claim the War on Poverty, which was always horribly underfunded, was being fought, and tell me where the money has gone. It wasn't to fight poverty it was to fight the other all over the globe in wars and proxy wars.

Your glaring ignorance is mind numbing.

 

[Dantès]

Debt vs. spending numbers from LBJ's administration are inherently misleading.

He was the president who first tossed Social Security contributions into the general fund and spent them as he wished.

He had a huge pot of cash to play around with.

I guess once you've dismissed the numbers as "inherently misleading" then you are completely free to say any damn thing you choose aren't you?

 

[Truth Detector]

The risk taking during the Bush years nearly destroyed the international monetary system and added trillions to the national debt. How are you going to pay for that education that you speak of without taxation?

Dear dunce; that risk taking would merely have destroyed the wealth of the greedy investors who CHOSE mortgage backed securities as a way to easy money; it is a myth and false to suggest that it destroyed the monetary system.

And Bush policy had ZERO to do with it,p.

Who argued that we do not tax to pay for education? Who is claiming we don't already pay HUGE taxes for education? Oh that's right shit-for-brains; no one made such a claim. It is just another of your fabrications you love to make up.

Carry on dunce.

 

[Truth Detector]

If the poverty level for a single person is judged to be $13,000 a year and you give them $13,200 a year you have by definition raised them out of poverty. It's called mathematics. You should learn some!

Yeah right, shit-for-brains. God you are one stupid uninformed, uneducated, hyper partisan dunce, you know that?

I'm going to attempt to give you a clue, but it will probably bounce right off of you; you do not improve lives through government theft of others hard earned wealth. Free market enterprise creates the jobs necessary for citizens to improve their lives and education ensures they have the skills neccessary to do them. No amount of well intentioned Government programs can, or ever will, improve things for a nations citizens. It will turn them into dependent wards of the State however, which is what dishonest Democratic politicians want so they can ensure a consistent uninformed voting constituency.

You don't have to believe me; just look at how it is working in Venezeula.

Carry on dunce.

 

[maineman]

Yeah right, shit-for-brains. God you are one stupid uninformed, uneducated, hyper partisan dunce, you know that?

I'm going to attempt to give you a clue, but it will probably bounce right off of you; you do not improve lives through government theft of others hard earned wealth. Free market enterprise creates the jobs necessary for citizens to improve their lives and education ensures they have the skills neccessary to do them. No amount of well intentioned Government programs can, or ever will, improve things for a nations citizens. It will turn them into dependent wards of the State however, which is what dishonest Democratic politicians want so they can ensure a consistent uninformed voting constituency.

You don't have to believe me; just look at how it is working in Venezeula.

Carry on dunce.

odd that you seemingly abandoned the Benghazi thread.... why was that?

 

[Truth Detector]

odd that you seemingly abandoned the Benghazi thread.... why was that?

I didn't dunce; you might want to check it out.

 

[maineman]

oh I did... and your idiocy continues unabated there. congratulations. You ask me for citations claiming you don't ask me for citations. You claim that the US Embassy in Beirut is part of a UN peacekeeping mission, you claim - in the space of a few hours from when you initially didn't even KNOW that the US Embassy had been bombed in 1983 - to now know all sorts of stuff about the incident.... like how a truck laden with explosives somehow drove into the embassy and down the back stairway and into the basement before exploding... yeah... I checked it out. You're a fucking loony motherfucker, that's for certain. Your mom must be proud.